152. New solidarity

 There is an urgent need to find a new form of solidarity that fits the new, singularistic form of individualism discussed in the preceding item of this blog.

 For this, Rosanvallon[1] proposed a shift from distributive to relational equality. No longer an equalizing redistribution of outcomes, but giving people equal access to resources and relationships needed for the development of distinctive activity. That is also the capability approach advocated by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum.

This is combined with the view that the formation of identity is social. Identity is a relational good that requires sharing with others. Citizens are not only bearers of rights but are defined by their relations with others. Rosanvallon called this reciprocity. In essence, what politics is, or should be, is communication and community among people who are different. Difference, not equality, is what makes relationships valuable.

In this blog I have developed a similar argument, on the basis of a constructivist epistemology: people construct their categories of cognition in interaction with others who are different. Differences are needed for learning.

Rosanvallon noted that the ‘micro level’ (my term, not Rosanvallon’s) of reciprocity requires a ‘macro level’ set of enabling institutions (which he called commonality). It requires a culture of collaboration in making society, turning difference into a binding, not an exclusionary factor, with a sense of curiosity, a zest for discovery. That requires institutions that prevent differences leading to exploitation, dominance or exclusion. The arena of distinction needs regulatory boundaries of justice.

The ethic of reciprocity requires a mentality of respect and openness, with a mutual extending of benefit of the doubt in case of mishap. I discussed that in my treatment of trust, in this blog (items 68-75). It requires a commitment to fairness, acting not only according to the letter of rules and agreements but also to their spirit. No more cheating, tax evasion, wilful pollution, fake products, and misleading promotion

All this does not eliminate competition and rivalry but, to the contrary, enables it, within boundaries of justice, and combines it with collaboration. This is a field of ongoing tension, in the search for mutuality as well as self-interest. This is enabled and constrained by human instincts for both self-preservation and social legitimacy. Institutions and personal and organizational skills should be developed to moderate between them.

The viability of all this is bolstered by its spiritual as well as its economic advantage.

Concerning spiritual advantage I argued (in items 49 and 55) that the highest form of freedom is the freedom to alter what one wants to want, and one can achieve this only by escaping from myopia and prejudice, and for this one needs openness to opposition by the other.

Concerning economic advantage I argued (in items 57 and 58) that differences between people can also, with the appropriate insights and skills, yield economic advantage, in creating innovation by Schumpeterian ‘novel combinations’.

Collaboration and regard for the other, in empathy and give and take, are desirable for their intrinsic value as well as their instrumental value, for realizing the opportunity for novelty in combining different views and capabilities from different people.

One should not be naive about this. As I argued in this blog (item 75), trust should never be blind and can operate only within boundaries of control. But trustworthy conduct can be rewarded with more limited control, offering a wider scope for action and novelty, as well as lower costs of control. Cheating is punished with the old straightjacket of control.

---

[1] Rosanvallon, La société des égaux, 2011, Paris: Editions Seuil.